Cookies on The Times of India website

The Times of India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the The Times of India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our
Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our
Privacy Policy

Interested in blogging for timesofindia.com? We will be happy to have you on board as a blogger, if you have the knack for writing. Just drop in a mail at toiblogs@timesinternet.in with a brief bio and we will get in touch with you.

Deepening #MeToo: Raising a critical query

Toxic femininity and freedom of movement are the two challenges that remain before #MeToo. Part 4 exposes the hypocrisy of women, themselves when it comes to suffering for principle. It also highlights the importance of freedom of movement and its acceptance within families and the corporate space.

The female #MeToo critic’s claim that she has never been sexually harassed herself is not only hollow but presumptuous. None of these women, it has been sadly observed, are above, even for principle’s sake, taking extra precautions or limiting their own movements or using money and privilege to pre-empt sexist bullying and gendered harassment in offices, the street and home.

Successful women typically “wore their privilege as a protective cover”, as Ghazala Wahab observes quite trenchantly in a newspaper OpEd, giving the lie to at least some of their talk about being progressive, because they have, all for expediency’s sake, manifestly bowed down to and exploited the mindset that a woman’s respectability and worth is defined by her family’s affluence or lack thereof; that, as the rural adage goes, a poor man’s wife is every man’s sister-in-law, who can be pawed at and then secretly despised for her weakness. (In fact, her vulnerability is taken for granted; she is not expected to be able to protect herself, and any behaviour on her part that defies this stereotype is discounted or disregarded, and by both sexes).

So the fact is that more women than Wahab allows for in her piece carry this mindset. Indeed, save the working class, even the low-income white-collar clerk aspires to and occasionally dons this cloak of privilege whenever expedient. This she does by dressing expensively, acting aloof from the blue collar worker, riding the auto-rickshaw rather than the public bus, overpaying the auto-rickshaw driver at nighttime, taking pride in being chaperoned to her destination, and so on. Women form cabals against those who practise and advocate self-sufficiency, snub and silence uncomfortable opinions, gaslight organic walk-at-nighters. In the name of equity feminism, even as they enjoy lifestyles and opportunities afforded to them through the hard struggles of classical, equality feminists, third-wavers pull down second-wave adherents, old, new and newly old ones.

Now comes the big question. Without belittling the so-called risks (because not taking them puts you at greater risk of being incapacitated in the face of danger, also most violence against women still occurs not on the street but at home) nor the journey involved (and as one having made that journey, this writer can vouch for what she had to give up in terms of ease of navigating social relationships, including inside the family or in the workplace), how far can this paranoia regarding safety really take women? Life itself is fraught with danger and hazards. Is it not double standards to demand protection from men, as well as rights equal to theirs? Should women not learn to fulfil the basic duty of all living things towards keeping safe, equip themselves with the knowledge and strength and skills required to respond to aggressions, micro- and major, gracefully and forcefully, because they, not the perpetrator, hold the spiritual and moral upper hand? Should they not teach themselves to wield both forgiveness and violence as weapons, before taking the recourse of society and the law? Should they not stop behaving like frightened victims themselves before accusing others, even rightly and rightfully, of aggressing against them? Will this increase, or reduce, violence against them in the long run? This is something the #MeToo conversation needs to urgently address.

Instead of being classist and entitled in factories, the market, on transport, in rough neighbourhoods, and on the road, doesn’t it make moral sense to respect the blue collar workingman, not automatically, not the person who is mooching and griping constantly, but the person making a better job of surviving than you, who is more noble, and efficient, and capable than you have been in your life? Will it increase or decrease the chance of begetting respect, for your capabilities and qualities in your turn? Especially, if you prove yourself to them in their areas of doubt, not through dialogue but deed, even if it means you have to be occasionally violent, within rights and with confidence? Why can’t you forgive them their doubts about womankind, for thinking less of women because of historical and sociological reasons, because they haven’t actually had a chance to experience good and powerful women? Why can’t you be the example and the lesson? It’s not easy, but it’s not so formidably difficult either. Self-defence, and, most importantly, self-dialogue, leading to change in women’s own behaviours, beliefs and attitudes, and tough love and tough communication with men (and other women who are not ready to talk and will often do more to oppose you) is the key to being safe, to overcoming woman hate and violence against women. And making some not-so-unlikely friends in the bargain.

Dear reader, have you noticed how women oppose women who move freely and at all hours? They poison groups against them to silence their observations and experiences, hound them out of jobs, isolate them within families, constantly engage in a game of one-upmanship with them, deprive them of livelihood and social interaction. If you are a woman and haven’t gone as far as to have all this happen to you, haven’t you been at least afraid of it coming to pass? Wasn’t it that fear that has deterred you in the first place?

Interestingly, misogyny by women is a common enough occurrence, although we are socialised to normalise it or look upon it as an isolated anomaly or a petty aberration. Post women’s marches against women’s entry into Sabarimala in Kerala, Sujata Anandan has written about the importance of calling out misogynistic women. Weeks ago, Meghan Daum warned #MeToo campaigners worldwide that the movement will not survive unless it reckons with what she terms ‘toxic femininity’. The lines between #MeTooIndia and #MeToo, and third/fourth and first/second waves are thus blurring as feminism worldwide reckons with the ultimate question: Is misogyny, and patriarchy, after all, a female construct? It’s definitely a point to ponder, and time for us all to do it now.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Blog

Author

Formerly assistant editor on the City pages of The Times of India. Likes animals better than most people. Believes in the Oscar Wilde maxim: Disobedience is the first virtue of mankind. Takes responsibility. She lost her father recently.

Formerly assistant editor on the City pages of The Times of India. Likes animals better than most people. Believes in the Oscar Wilde maxim: Disobedience is. . .

Blog

Author

Formerly assistant editor on the City pages of The Times of India. Likes animals better than most people. Believes in the Oscar Wilde maxim: Disobedience is the first virtue of mankind. Takes responsibility. She lost her father recently.

Formerly assistant editor on the City pages of The Times of India. Likes animals better than most people. Believes in the Oscar Wilde maxim: Disobedience is. . .